ORDER :

SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

This is another instance of a borrower seeking to delay the inevitable and cling on to the property furnished by way of security despite having failed to repay the debt.

2. Indeed, this borrower does not recognise his status as a borrower and seeks to make a distinction between the persons who obtained the credit facilities from the secured creditor and the petitioner herein who furnished the security. In law, however, there is no distinction as even under the Contract Act, 1872 the liability of a guarantor is co-extensive with that of a borrower. Further, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 makes no distinction between a principal debtor and a guarantor and clubs the two together within the fold of the definition of "borrower".

3. The facts are not in much dispute. A loan was obtained from the respondent secured creditor in 2006 to the tune of Rs.55 lakh. A land measuring approximately 3.36 acre was furnished by way of security. The borrowers failed to repay the loan as per the terms and upon the account turning NPA, the secured creditor adopted measures under the Act of 2002. On August 1,